Irrfan Khan breaks silence, says he has NeuroEndocrine Tumour

New Delhi, Feb 10: A 44-year-old man allegedly killed his daughter and son before ending his life by jumping in front of a Delhi metro train at Haiderpur Badli Mor station on Sunday, police said.

No suicide note has been recovered, but police claimed that the man, Madhur Malani, was depressed since his sandpaper-manufacturing factory was closed some six months ago due to financial crunch leaving him jobless. Madhur's parents had been supporting his family financially since then.

He used to stay with his wife Rupali, daughter Samiksha (14) and six-year-old son Shraiyans at a rented house in northwest Delhi's Shalimar Bagh area, they said.

Rupali was not at home when Madhur strangled their children. He might have also smothered their daughter but the exact cause of death would be ascertained only after the post-mortem reports arrive, a police official said.

After killing his two children, he jumped in front of an approaching train at Haiderpur Badli Mor Metro station following which he was rushed to a hospital where doctors declared him 'brought dead', the official said.

Metro services on the Yellow Line were briefly delayed due to the incident.

"Delay in services from Samaypur Badli to GTB Nagar due to a passenger on track at Haiderpur Badli Mor," the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) tweeted.

After about 15 minutes, it again tweeted that normal services have been restored. The Delhi Metro's Yellow Line connects Samaypur Badli in Delhi to HUDA City Centre in Gurgaon.

The suicide was reported to the police around 5.40 pm while the Shalimar Bagh Police station received a call about the killings around 6.50 pm.

On reaching the house, police found bodies of the children lying in beds in two rooms. During enquiry, it was learnt that their father has left the house, a senior police officer said.

While police were trying to trace Madhur, they learnt about a suicide at the metro station. On verifying the details, it surfaced that Madhur committed suicide after killing his children, the officer said.

Rupali told police that she had gone to a nearby market around 3 pm and on returning home she found the bodies of her children while her husband was missing.

A case under relevant sections of the IPC has been registered and investigation was underway, Deputy Commissioner of Police (Northwest) Vijayanta Arya said.

Tokyo, Mar 4: Takeda Pharmaceutical Co said on Wednesday it was developing a drug to treat COVID-19, the flu-like illness that has struck more than 90,000 people worldwide and killed over 3,000.

The Japanese drugmaker is working on a plasma-derived therapy to treat high-risk individuals infected with the new coronavirus and will share its plans with members of the U.S. Congress on Wednesday, it said in a statement.

Takeda is also studying whether its currently marketed and pipeline products may be effective treatments for infected patients.

"We will do all that we can to address the novel coronavirus threat...(and) are hopeful that we can expand the treatment options," Rajeev Venkayya, president of Takeda's vaccine business, said in the statement.

Takeda said it was in talks with various health and regulatory agencies and healthcare partners in the United States, Asia and Europe to move forward its research into the drug.

Its research requires access to the blood of people who have recovered from the respiratory disease or who have been vaccinated, once a vaccine is developed, Takeda said.

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.